Don't ignore basketball

[nelsonmuntz]

The Big East 14 will be no worse than the #2 basketball league in the country. I would not want to dilute it recklessly just to solve a football problem. It is worth noting that in the last 20 years, none of the basketball additions that were poor programs when they joined ever really improved. Between Rutgers, Miami, VTech and USF, there are a grand total of 4 NCAA appearances in the Big East and 1 Sweet 16, all by Miami, which reverted back to incompetence before leaving the league. I don't recall the other 3 schools ever even achieving bubble status in the Big East in a given year.

Upgrading a basketball program from nothing in a league like the Big East is really hard, harder than upgrading football. Just look at the relative track records. Each of USF, Cincinnati, UConn and Louisville experienced immediate improvements in recruiting upon joining the Big East. Look at TCU's recruiting class this year. With so many players on each team, recent upgrade programs can peel away depth from the majors because the upgrade programs can suddenly offer the path to a major bowl.

I think a program like Houston could pull off a basketball upgrade, with all of their Final Fours and tremendous local talent (Okafor and Voskuhl), and schools like Depaul and St. Johns can turnaround quickly because of their location and history. I think Temple could be a Top 20 program in the Big East but they are already very good. UCF and SMU, on the other hand, would struggle to win more than 6 BE games in any season in the first 5 years in the league.

I appreciate the bias to football only programs.

 

[zls44]

The good news is that UCF is making a serious BB push, with a gorgeous new on-campus arena and a Top 25 ranking for part of last year, including a win over Florida. If they wanted to really boost ticket sales, they could play a game at the Magic's new arena for a bigger gate.

 

[traitor71]

It's amazing to me how you just do not get it. You've been wrong every step of the way and now you think that it is just a "football problem". Don't you see that no one really cares about what a team may have accomplished basketball wise? Football, football, football. It's what has the attention of the sports fan in this country and it's what is driving this whole thing. Rant about lawsuits and the like, but you need to realize that if you aren't a league that has something football wise, then you are in a league that is in jeopardy of going away.

 

[ZooCougar]

I think Xavier and Gonzaga should be near the top of the list.

 

[uconNYC]

It's amazing to me how you just do not get it. You've been wrong every step of the way and now you think that it is just a "football problem". Don't you see that no one really cares about what a team may have accomplished basketball wise? Football, football, football. It's what has the attention of the sports fan in this country and it's what is driving this whole thing. Rant about lawsuits and the like, but you need to realize that if you aren't a league that has something football wise, then you are in a league that is in jeopardy of going away.

The only reason we are in the conversation about possibly going to the ACC is because of our dynamite basketball programs. Yes - if there is a top notch football school, we need to bring them in (e.g. TCU), but no point bringing in mediocre teams and diluting the basketball side of things.

 

[traitor71]

If the choice is between a program that is good in football and weak in hoops or the opposite, then you have to take the football program. There is nothing for this conference to lean on in football, nothing captivating at all. That has to change if the league is going to survive in my opinion. We didn't start a program to play in a conference USA type of league but that looks like where we are headed right now.

 

[SAMCRO]

The only reason we are in the conversation about possibly going to the ACC is because of our dynamite basketball programs. Yes - if there is a top notch football school, we need to bring them in (e.g. TCU), but no point bringing in mediocre teams and diluting the basketball side of things.

That's the kind of thinking that will get you a promotion in Providence. Also the kind of thinking that has the BE in the spot it's in today.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

It's amazing to me how you just do not get it. You've been wrong every step of the way and now you think that it is just a "football problem". Don't you see that no one really cares about what a team may have accomplished basketball wise? Football, football, football. It's what has the attention of the sports fan in this country and it's what is driving this whole thing. Rant about lawsuits and the like, but you need to realize that if you aren't a league that has something football wise, then you are in a league that is in jeopardy of going away.

If what you say is true, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech would all be in the Pac 16 right now. Those 4 would all be among the top half of the Pac 16, with Ok, Okie Lite and Texas probably being 3 of the top 5. And those 4 barely got 6 votes for expansion. So you are wrong.

Expansion is about:

1) Markets
2) Football
3) Basketball

All 3 are important. There is no point in adding a semi-decent football program like ECU that has no market and is terrible at hoops. The Big East revenues will most definitely get driven by basketball going forward, and the strength of the hoops league could help protect us on the BCS too, like it did in 2004.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

I find it amusing that some posters who pick out the bulk of Flipper's quotes in the Blaudschun article as absolute gospel are also conveniently ignoring this item:

"You don't get extra money for basketball. It's 85 percent football money."

 

[toppencil]

I find it amusing that some posters who pick out the bulk of Flipper's quotes in the Blaudschun article as absolute gospel are also conveniently ignoring this item:

Interesting he would say that, BC football barely makes a profit, BC BB breakes even. Neither program is in the top 100 profitable college sports programs. As I said before, BC makes relatively little money because of all the travel they incur playing in the ACC. They should have stayed in the Big East.

Also note that several BB programs are rated surprisingly high. Louisville BB is rated number 21. Little PC BB makes more money than BC Football.

http://businessofcollegesports.com/...ketball-programs-produce-the-largest-profits/

 

[uconnfan68]

Interesting he would say that, BC football barely makes a profit, BC BB breakes even. Neither program is in the top 100 profitable college sports programs. As I said before, BC makes relatively little money because of all the travel they incur playing in the ACC. They should have stayed in the Big East.

Also note that several BB programs are rated surprisingly high. Louisville BB is rated number 21. Little PC BB makes more money than BC Football.

http://businessofcollegesports.com/...ketball-programs-produce-the-largest-profits/

I refuse to believe there is any truth to the numbers you have provided. BC basketball has higher revenues than UConn basketball, AND also spends more? Last I heard they couldn't give tickets away.

 

[toppencil]

I refuse to believe there is any truth to the numbers you have provided. BC basketball has higher revenues than UConn basketball, AND also spends more? Last I heard they couldn't give tickets away.

If you read the report, the bottom paragraph states: The data in these charts is from reports filed by each school with the U.S. Department of Education. As always when I post U.S. Department of Education data, I must warn you that although there are guidelines for how to report revenue and expenses, there is some wiggle room in terms of how to attribute facilities costs and broadcasting revenue. These are the only numbers available for every school, however, because private schools are not subject to public records requests but do have to file their data with the U.S. Department of Education.

You may be right, depending on how each school applies accounting principles. However, the difference in revenues is relatively small.

 

[uconnfan68]

If you read the report, the bottom paragraph states: The data in these charts is from reports filed by each school with the U.S. Department of Education. As always when I post U.S. Department of Education data, I must warn you that although there are guidelines for how to report revenue and expenses, there is some wiggle room in terms of how to attribute facilities costs and broadcasting revenue. These are the only numbers available for every school, however, because private schools are not subject to public records requests but do have to file their data with the U.S. Department of Education.

You may be right, depending on how each school applies accounting principles. However, the difference in revenues is relatively small.

If it's a self reporting job, would you trust Leahy and DeFilippo? Not as far as you could throw them.

 

[upstater]

If you read the report, the bottom paragraph states: The data in these charts is from reports filed by each school with the U.S. Department of Education. As always when I post U.S. Department of Education data, I must warn you that although there are guidelines for how to report revenue and expenses, there is some wiggle room in terms of how to attribute facilities costs and broadcasting revenue. These are the only numbers available for every school, however, because private schools are not subject to public records requests but do have to file their data with the U.S. Department of Education.

You may be right, depending on how each school applies accounting principles. However, the difference in revenues is relatively small.

Even revenues can be bolstered.

For a real look, just do a search "USA Today NCAA database" and you'll see the full breakdown by sport.

 

[NHUConnfan]

It's amazing to me how you just do not get it. You've been wrong every step of the way and now you think that it is just a "football problem". Don't you see that no one really cares about what a team may have accomplished basketball wise? Football, football, football. It's what has the attention of the sports fan in this country and it's what is driving this whole thing. Rant about lawsuits and the like, but you need to realize that if you aren't a league that has something football wise, then you are in a league that is in jeopardy of going away.

Maybe in terms of money in general.

But let's be honest, UConn is no one without basketball. UConn doesn't have football without basketball. And in that case, for UConn, everything is about basketball.

 

[ctchamps]

Maybe in terms of money in general.

But let's be honest, UConn is no one without basketball. UConn doesn't have football without basketball. And in that case, for UConn, everything is about basketball.

Good points. It has been demonstrated that only 10% of Universities get a bump from Division I athletics regarding prospective high school students desire to attend these Universities. That 10% bump comes from successful athletic programs.

UConn has risen dramatically academically over the last couple of decades. The rise is correlated with the rise in mens and women's bb. It would be ridiculous to assign all of that rise on the basketball programs. But it would be equally ridiculous to omit the bb success as a factor.

So if I'm correct about this association, basketball cannot be ignored or reduced in importance.

 

[HuskyHawk]

If what you say is true, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech would all be in the Pac 16 right now. Those 4 would all be among the top half of the Pac 16, with Ok, Okie Lite and Texas probably being 3 of the top 5. And those 4 barely got 6 votes for expansion. So you are wrong.

Expansion is about:

1) Markets
2) Football
3) Basketball

All 3 are important. There is no point in adding a semi-decent football program like ECU that has no market and is terrible at hoops. The Big East revenues will most definitely get driven by basketball going forward, and the strength of the hoops league could help protect us on the BCS too, like it did in 2004.

More than these three are important. UCF and SFU have good markets and good football. But the perceived status of the universities is that they are regional commuter schools (which they largely are). They will never get an SEC, B1G, Pac, BXII or ACC invite. Houston is in a similar situation, along with schools like East Carolina, Tulsa etc. Some like CFU, ECU, Tulsa and Southern Miss have had some athletic success. It doesn't matter. The folks at SFU must give thanks every day for getting into a BCS conference. It was a miracle.

As expansion turns to CFU and Boise, two more low-prestige regional schools (who currently have good football), I sense UConn's urgency to escape from a conference of such schools.

 

[NHUConnfan]

Good points. It has been demonstrated that only 10% of Universities get a bump from Division I athletics regarding prospective high school students desire to attend these Universities. That 10% bump comes from successful athletic programs.

UConn has risen dramatically academically over the last couple of decades. The rise is correlated with the rise in mens and women's bb. It would be ridiculous to assign all of that rise on the basketball programs. But it would be equally ridiculous to omit the bb success as a factor.

So if I'm correct about this association, basketball cannot be ignored or reduced in importance.

Exactly!

 

[MattMang23]

Good points. It has been demonstrated that only 10% of Universities get a bump from Division I athletics regarding prospective high school students desire to attend these Universities. That 10% bump comes from successful athletic programs.

UConn has risen dramatically academically over the last couple of decades. The rise is correlated with the rise in mens and women's bb. It would be ridiculous to assign all of that rise on the basketball programs. But it would be equally ridiculous to omit the bb success as a factor.

So if I'm correct about this association, basketball cannot be ignored or reduced in importance.

I can personally attest to there being a desire to attend a certain school based on that school's athletic success. People say non-athletes don't pick the school they attend based on sports. I say that's BS. Picking UConn had a lot to do with athletics for me. I wanted to pick a school close to home (born and raised in Hartford area), that didn't cost a fortune, was well respected, but that had big time college athletics. UConn was the perfect fit. When I applied in 2002, we were just starting out as a D1A football team, but basketball was in the midst of an elite 8 season. Without basketball, I wouldn't have gone to UConn. Sports DOES play a part in a kid choosing a school because with successful sports teams comes an enhanced sense of a community atmosphere, cohesion and camaraderie among students, a sense of pride, and really, it brings more fun. Personally, I visited many campuses, most smaller than UConn, but nowhere did I find a community more in love and prideful of their teams and school than at UConn. That's a huge reason I attended UConn.

 

[Richmondhsky]

Good points. It has been demonstrated that only 10% of Universities get a bump from Division I athletics regarding prospective high school students desire to attend these Universities. That 10% bump comes from successful athletic programs.

UConn has risen dramatically academically over the last couple of decades. The rise is correlated with the rise in mens and women's bb. It would be ridiculous to assign all of that rise on the basketball programs. But it would be equally ridiculous to omit the bb success as a factor.

So if I'm correct about this association, basketball cannot be ignored or reduced in importance.

Without UCONN BB does the state invest $1b in infrastructure etc which helps applications. Also, didn't we see a massive increase in applications for admission after each national championship? Might be wrong but don't think so. UC BB = more $'s and an subsequent increase in applications, state investment resulting in higher average SAT scores of applicants...all noted on this board previously.

 

[Scalito]

The Big East 14 will be no worse than the #2 basketball league in the country. I would not want to dilute it recklessly just to solve a football problem. It is worth noting that in the last 20 years, none of the basketball additions that were poor programs when they joined ever really improved. Between Rutgers, Miami, VTech and USF, there are a grand total of 4 NCAA appearances in the Big East and 1 Sweet 16, all by Miami, which reverted back to incompetence before leaving the league. I don't recall the other 3 schools ever even achieving bubble status in the Big East in a given year.

Upgrading a basketball program from nothing in a league like the Big East is really hard, harder than upgrading football. Just look at the relative track records. Each of USF, Cincinnati, UConn and Louisville experienced immediate improvements in recruiting upon joining the Big East. Look at TCU's recruiting class this year. With so many players on each team, recent upgrade programs can peel away depth from the majors because the upgrade programs can suddenly offer the path to a major bowl.

I think a program like Houston could pull off a basketball upgrade, with all of their Final Fours and tremendous local talent (Okafor and Voskuhl), and schools like Depaul and St. Johns can turnaround quickly because of their location and history. I think Temple could be a Top 20 program in the Big East but they are already very good. UCF and SMU, on the other hand, would struggle to win more than 6 BE games in any season in the first 5 years in the league.

I appreciate the bias to football only programs.

The football-football-football mantra gets too much play. Football did not build UConn into an athletic powerhouse. Football did not pay for Gampel pavillion. And football will not pay for the basketball practice facility we intend to construct in order to stay on top.

Football greatness is a great goal. But you can be relevant in basketball without it, the common wisdom of the talking heads notwithstanding. Basketball pays for itself if you are great. Football money is helpful for the likes of Texas and Florida basketball no doubt, but it is not necessary for top teir basketball programs like UConn.

 

[ZooCougar]

Basketball can only can take us so far. Football will take us further.

 

[toppencil]

It's much harder to build a top tier college football program than a top tier college basketball program. To build a top flight basketball program you need the right coach and 1 or 2 star players, that's it. Football is a major operation, you need a great coach and a lot of talented players to take on teams like LSU, Alabama and Texas etc.

What UConn and USF are trying to do is incredibly hard. Look at the problems Notre Dame has had since Holtz left.

If Urban Meyer is willing, pay him, than maybe with 4-5 years of outstanding recruiting, who knows.

 

[uconNYC]

Basketball can only can take us so far. Football will take us further.

Do you think we should breakaway from SJU, VU, Georgetown to start an all sports conference with UCF, ECU, UH, SMU, etc? Not only will Gampel and XL be half empty, we'll have a tough time recruiting kids to our powerhouse Soccer and Field Hockey programs. Oh right, but football will have a 50/50 shot of salvaging the BCS bid, we'll be getting at most a 5M dollar check from Versus, The Rent will be half empty and we'll probably still be a middle of the pack football program.

I don't mean to sound pro basketball. I just feel bolting from the Big East for CUSA+ is a lose-lose proposition. If you tell me that our basketball might have more challenges but Football will be guaranteed BCS, we will get 15M from TV and The Rent will be rock-in, then that's fine. Sign me up! But I just don't see that happening.

 

[ZooCougar]

When did I say that? I doubt we'll get 15 M from TV regardless of the affiliation or composition. Unless of course we're in the ACC.